IndraD wrote:The US should block access to islands built by China in contested waters of the South China Sea, Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of state says.The comments, which are likely to hike tensions with Beijing, were made by Rex Tillerson at his confirmation hearing.Beijing has been building artificial islands on reefs in waters also claimed by other nations.Images published late last year show military defences on some islands, a think-tank says.Mr Tillerson, appearing before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, likened China's island-building to Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine."We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."

This may be all talk in the beginning until a deal is made. However, while the talking is going on, India should focus on making a move on the pakis. At the minimum take bridge out in the cpec, say in balochistan.

Trump risks 'war' with Beijing if US blocks access to South China Sea, state media warnsThreats by Rex Tillerson, would-be secretary of state, to stop access to islands are ‘mish-mash of naivety and shortsightedness’, says China Daily

China’s Liaoning aircraft carrier conducts a drill in the South China Sea. State media has warned of conflict if the US attempts to block access to islands there. Photograph: China Stringer Network/ReutersBenjamin Haas in Hong Kong

Friday 13 January 2017 risks a “large-scale war” with China if it attempts to blockade islands in the South China Sea, Chinese state media has said, adding that if recent statements become policy when Donald Trump takes over as president “the two sides had better prepare for a military clash”.

China has controversially built fortifications and artificial islands across the South China Sea. Rex Tillerson, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, said China’s “access to those islands … is not going to be allowed”.

China claims nearly the entire area, with rival claims by five south-east Asian neighbours and Taiwan.

Tillerson did not specify how the US would block access but experts agreed it could only be done by a significant show of military force. Tillerson likened China’s island building to “Russia’s taking of Crimea”.

“Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories,” said an editorial in the Global Times, a Communist-party controlled newspaper.

“China has enough determination and strength to make sure that his rabble rousing will not succeed … Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish.”

Rex Tillerson: I would block China’s access to islands in South China SeaUnder Barack Obama the US remained neutral on sovereignty claims, not recognising any ownership, but often challenged China’s control of the area by sailing warships past islands in what it called freedom of navigation exercises.

If that policy became more confrontational, including denying China access to islands it already controls, “it would set a course for devastating confrontation between China and the US”, declared the state-run China Daily.

China’s official response was more tame. Foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said China-US relations were based on “non-confrontation, non-conflict, mutual benefit and win-win cooperation”.

Both newspapers also dismissed recent statements by Trump and his team – taking a similar stance to the Chinese government, which is waiting for Trump to be sworn in before equating his words with policy.

Tillerson’s remarks “are not worth taking seriously because they are a mish-mash of naivety, shortsightedness, worn-out prejudices and unrealistic political fantasies”, the China Daily wrote. “Should he act on them in the real world it would be disastrous.”

There are signs, though, that Trump shares Tillerson’s views and they will be carried into the White House.

In December, Trump made similar comments in an interview with Fox News, accusing Beijing of “building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldn’t be doing”.

Peter Navarro, Trump’s pick to head the newly created national trade council, has been extremely hostile to China and encouraged the president-elect to pursue a “peace through strength” policy in the region.

“Beijing has created some 3,000 acres of artificial islands in the South China Sea with very limited American response,” Navarro has previously written.

Donald Trump has perhaps attacked no country as consistently as China. During his campaign, he thundered that China was “raping” the United States, “killing” us on trade and artificially depressing its currency to make its goods cheap. Since being elected, he has spoken to the leader of Taiwan and continued the bellicosity toward Beijing. So it was a surprise to me, on a recent trip to Beijing, to find Chinese elites relatively sanguine about Trump. It says something about their view of Trump, but perhaps more about how they see their own country.

“Trump is a negotiator, and the rhetoric is all part of his opening bid,” said a Chinese scholar, who would not agree to be named (as was true of most policymakers and experts I spoke with). “He likes to make deals,” the scholar continued, “and we are good dealmakers as well. There are several agreements we could make on trade.” As one official noted to me, Beijing could simply agree with Trump that it is indeed a “currency manipulator” — although it has actually been trying to prop up the yuan over the past two years. After such an admission, market forces would likely make the currency drop in value, lowering the price of Chinese goods.

Chinese officials point out that they have economic weapons as well. China is a huge market for U.S. goods, and last year the country invested $46 billion in the U.S. economy (according to the Rhodium Group). But the officials’ calm derives from the reality that China is becoming far less dependent on foreign markets for its growth. Ten years ago, exports made up a staggering 37 percent of China’s gross domestic product. Today they make up just 22 percent and are falling.

China has changed. Western brands there are rare, and the country’s own companies now dominate almost every aspect of the huge and growing domestic economy. Few businesses take their cues from U.S. firms anymore. Technology companies are innovating, and many young Chinese boasted to me that their local versions of Google, Amazon and Facebook were better, faster and more sophisticated than the originals. The country has become its own, internally focused universe.

This situation is partly the product of government policy. Jeffrey Immelt , the chief executive of General Electric, noted in 2010 that China was becoming hostile to foreign firms. U.S. tech giants have struggled in China because of formal or informal rules against them.

The next stage in China’s strategy is apparently to exploit the leadership vacuum being created by the United States’ retreat on trade. As Trump was promising protectionism and threatening literally to wall off the United States from its southern neighbor, Chinese President Xi Jinping made a trip through Latin America in November, his third in four years. He signed more than 40 deals, Bloomberg reported, and committed tens of billions of dollars of investments in the region, adding to a $250 billion commitment made in 2015.

The centerpiece of China’s strategy takes advantage of Trump’s declaration that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead. The trade deal, negotiated between the United States and 11 other countries, lowered barriers to trade and investment, pushing large Asian economies such as Japan and Vietnam in a more open and rule-based direction. Now China has offered up its own version of the pact, one that excludes the United States and favors China’s more mercantilist approach.

Australia, once a key backer of the TPP, has announced that it supports China’s alternative. Other Asian countries will follow suit soon.

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Peru in November, John Key, who was then New Zealand’s prime minister, put it simply: “[The TPP] was all about the United States showing leadership in the Asia region. . . . We really like the U.S. being in the region. . . . But in the end if the U.S. is not there, that void has to be filled. And it will be filled by China.”

Xi’s speech at the summit was remarkable, sounding more like an address traditionally made by an American president. It praised trade, integration and openness and promised to help ensure that countries don’t close themselves off to global commerce and cooperation.

Next week, Xi will become the first Chinese president to attend the World Economic Forum at Davos, surely aiming to reinforce the message of Chinese global leadership on trade. Meanwhile, Western leaders are forfeiting their traditional roles. Angela Merkel and Justin Trudeau announced last-minute cancellations of their plans to speak at the Swiss summit. Trump has only made sneering references to globalism and globalization, and no senior member of his team currently plans to attend.

Looking beyond Trump’s tweets, Beijing seems to have concluded that his presidency might well prove to be the best thing that’s happened to China in a long time.

^^Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s self-serving term at the helm of government only adds to Nepal’s internal instability, which in turn makes a mockery of Nepal’s diplomacy. His most egregious departure was the so-called ‘trilateral meeting’ at the Goa BRICS-BIMSTEC Outreach Summit in October. The prime minister collaborated with his son-cum-personal-secretary Prakash Dahal in publicising what seems to have been an informal and inadvertent meeting with Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi in a lounge as they waited for conveyance.

Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish," the state-sanctioned Global Times newspaper wrote on its English-language website.

It went on to stress that the US "has no absolute power to dominate the South China Sea," warning that Tillerson "had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories."

The article also said that China has so far "shown restraint" when Trump's cabinet picks have expressed "radical views," as the president-elect has not yet been sworn in. However, it stressed that the US "should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of their threats."

"If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash," the article reads, adding that Tillerson's statements are "far from professional."

The former ExxonMobil CEO’s comments were made during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, in which he said that China's activities in the disputed South China Sea were "extremely worrisome."

"Building islands and then putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia's taking of Crimea. It's taking of territory that others lay claim to," Tillerson said, referring to the reunification of Crimea and Russia, which took place following a referendum in 2014.

"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed."

Tillerson went on to accuse President Obama of being complacent during his tenure, stating that "failure of a response has allowed them (China) to just keep pushing the envelope on this."

Just look at the body language of the 4. Xi is sitting back haughtily like an Emperor.

On the Chinese threat of war as a result of Rex Tillerson's testimony about blocking Chinese access to the reclaimed islands in the South China Sea, if it ever comes to a military clash between the US and China, my prediction is that the US Navy will cut through Chinese fortifications on those shoals like a hot knife through butter.

^^^the question is will US-China go to war for few sq kms of land(agreed they have much larger strategic significance). If it has ever to come for war it has to be a Poland style invasion. China will keep on grabbing territory in inches and miles over decades through a economic stranglehold (like our pakhana) or through small bites not more than they can chew rather than Blitzkreig style operations.

Open source information indicates China has a definite edge or parity over even the USA in drone sw/hw and has been investing in improving its capabilities in this sector.

Given that most commercial drones are manufactured in China they definitely have a leg up in deploying such gadgets for military superiority. It's shocking difficult to take down a drone with conventional weapons like machine guns especially when a swarm can be deployed to saturate defences. China has already developed and and PLA can deploy some real innovative kamikaze drones with explosives at very short notice. I wonder if Indian armed forces have such assassin mace concepts in their war games

Offensive/defensive E&M jamming and disabling equipment at platoon or battalion level is the need of the hour, however whether they will be sufficient to take on cheap AI enabled drone swarms is not clear.

This means, the heat due to the PEOTUS and team is real. And probably something else might also be cooking from our own kitchen with regards to pok, balochistan, etc. seenees are trying to blindside us with sweet talk once more. All depends on whether we know what we want and how to get.

Posting from my phone. I have always held the view that Chinese diplomacy always ties itself up in knots and invites ridicule because of its behaviour. We have seen it in so many instances such as oil drilling in Vietnamese waters, Chinese activities in POK, 1267 actions, NSG, UNSC reforms particularly Indian position, Agni-V (not only after the latest test but the very first test in c. 2012) etc. Its actions / reactions to other international developments also are ridiculous many times. China is very insecure on multiple fronts.

^^^chola sir, the reason I say it's dangerous is because they will run away before we respond saying that they are offering "ceasefire", and go back. Just think of the propaganda they will do to whole world saying that they militarily defeated India. Dhoti shibbering onree. On the ground nothing changes, but image of India would get severely dented. That is what they are looking for, not the war with rules...

TKiran wrote:^^^chola sir, the reason I say it's dangerous is because they will run away before we respond saying that they are offering "ceasefire", and go back. Just think of the propaganda they will do to whole world saying that they militarily defeated India. Dhoti shibbering onree. On the ground nothing changes, but image of India would get severely dented. That is what they are looking for, not the war with rules...

In order for them to win propaganda wise, they still need to steal territory like they did with Aksai Chin. They weren't able to keep territory against Vietnam in the 1970s so that war was a propaganda black eye for the PRC no matter how much they protest that they have taught Vietnam a "lesson."

If we are sure they are nothing but talk then a war with them is not dangerous but instead would be an opportunity. If they are all talk then we can pursue them into Tibet to ensure they cannot possibly claim a propaganda victory.

Having failed to constrict India within South Asia with its “String of Pearls” (an American euphuism) Strategy, China has now embarked on a new initiative to trip India’s growing comprehensive national power (CNP) and influence beyond South Asia.

India’s neighbours swam with China periodically, depending on the government in those countries. For Example, the Mahinda Rajapksa government in Sri Lanka jumped into China’s lap for their own political reasons. The Mathiripala Sirisena government has restored the balance.

The BNP led four party alliance government (2001-2006) in Bangladesh brought relations with India to the lowest ebb. The alliance had parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami which were beholden to Pakistan and actively complicit in the savage rape and attempted extermination of the pro-liberation Bengalees in 1971. They were natural allies of not only Pakistan but also China which supported Pakistan. The return of the Awami League to power changed this policy drastically. The Awami League government, due to practical necessity and real politics, crafted a friendly relationship with China, but not at the expense of their relationship with India. China, however, is trying to entice Dhaka, but this does not worry India because India-Bangladesh relationship has more than political market imperatives. There is a cultural and historical conjunction.

Nepal has been vacillating between India and China. Lodged between the two giant countries, they are trying to get the best out of the two. China recognises India’s influence in Nepal, but has been consistently trying to weaken the India-Nepal relationship.

Pakistan has emerged as China’s mainstay in the region and extends to the Gulf, the Central Asian region, and now they are trying to draw in Russia in this ambit. Weakening India-Russia relations is one of its aims. With its promised 46 billion investment in Pakistan for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Control of the Gwadar Port (a military project), primary arms and defence equipment supplier and recent acquisition of 40 percent of the Pakistan stock market by a Chinese conglomerate, Pakistan is fast emerging as a country under Chinese suzerainty. Evidence suggests Pakistan may soon become a platform for the projection of both soft and hard power for being along the route envisaged for the “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) project. China is unlikely to declare Pakistan as one of its “core” interests, but it is already acting as such.

Lately, China has been expressing concerns about achieving the full potential of the CPEC. In an article in the Communist Party affiliated newspaper Global Times (Dec. 28, 2016), Wang Dehua, Director of the Institute of Southern and Central Asian Studies, Shanghai Municipal Center for Internal Studies, wrote that the CEPC was facing challenges. He went on to describe the project as having “Significant economic, political and strategic implications for both China and Pakistan”.

Wang wrote this in the context of a spat between the Chinese Charged Affaires in Islamabad Zhao Lijian and a journalist of the Pakistani newspaper Dawn. The concerned journalist asked Zhao some uncomfortable questions including use of Chinese prisoners as labour. The senior Chinese diplomat lost his cool in a public place, which is very uncharacteristic of the Chinese.

Wang Dehua revealed that Chinese investment was raised to $51 billion from the initial $46 billion. The Chinese party media have extolled the virtue of the CPEC not only for China and Pakistan but other countries of the region including India, Iran, Afghanistan and Russia. The emphasis has been more on India, suggesting that India joining the project could help reduce tensions between India and Pakistan. Simultaneously, there is a suggestion to link Gwadar and Chabahar ports as sister ports and sister cities.

The CPEC is the flagship project of the larger OBOR strategic conception of extending China’s circulatory system far and wide. It has political and strategic penetration as significant benefits. Most important is the fact that it is Chinese President Xi Jinping’s prestige project. It cannot be allowed to fail at any cost. It is also part of China’s great power signature.

At the same time, Beijing is ramping up pressure on India in a shower, trying to destabilise India’s emerging foreign policy. Beijing’s stand will have serious negative implications especially on the biggest threat to the world at this moment, terrorism. In the last week of December, China vetoed India’s move to designate Masood Azhar, head of Pakistan-based terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammad as a “terrorist” at the UN Committee 2167 on terrorism. This, when the organisation itself is designated as a terrorist organisation by the same committee.

This one move by China has hit at the very roots of the global movement against extremism and terrorism. Read plainly, China will use terrorism as a political weapon against perceived enemies, in this case India. It also encourages Pakistan to use terrorism with impunity against India, Afghanistan and even, perhaps Bangladesh.

India is determined to continue its efforts to bring other Pakistani-based and backed terrorists in front of the 2167 committee. China is the only member of their 15 member committee to oppose the move against Azhar. In a manner China stands isolated.

China took umbrage and accused India of interfering in China’s internal affairs after the Indian President met His Holiness the Dalai Lama at a function which was totally non-political. Their official media threatened India of retaliation of the kind they subjected the tiny country of Mongolia after Dalai Lama’s visit to Mongolia that was a purely religious one. Mongolia is a Buddhist Country, mostly of the Gelugpa sect of Buddhism which the Dalai Lama heads spiritually. This is a stupid threat. Mongolia a tiny land locked country, with a population of around two million is dependent on China for outside access. Such threats do not impress the Indian government and the Indian people. The Chinese threat appears to be an act of frustration.

Nevertheless, Tibet is a declared core interest of China, hence the Dalai Lama. The 80 year spiritual leader has withdrawn himself from politics, but his influence and reverence among Tibetans inside China and outside is palpable. The Chinese have not been able to come to a firm conclusion whether the living 14th Dalai Lama or deceased 14th Dalai Lama will be to their interest.

The Chinese leadership has tried to denigrate the Dalai Lama in all possible ways, calling him a ‘splittist’ (separatist), ‘devil’, ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing among other things, but these have not impressed anyone. Beijing suspects India is using Dalai Lama as a ‘card’ against China.

India has accepted Tibet Autonomous Region as a sovereign part of China (2003). The Tibetan refugees in India are not allowed political activities. Successive governments in New Delhi have bent over backwards to accommodate China’s concerns. But if China continues to attack India on this issue, India will be forced to fight back. Allow the Dalai Lama and the generally accepted Kargyupa head Ughen Thinley Dorjee freedom to move around India including Tawang and the rest of Arunachal Pradesh.

China is trying to push the OBOR to and through Nepal and Bangladesh. They hope that through persuasion from these two countries India may succumb and agree to join the OBOR in the interest of its good neighbourhood policy. If India does not relent China may seek alternative policies in India’s neighbourhood to constrict India. The Global Times has already hinted at this.

Beijing remains determined to keep India out of the Nuclear Supplies Group (NSG). It has now objected to India’s successful testing (Dec. 16, 2016) of the 5000 kms nuclear capable ballistic missile Agni V. In a sharply worded statement Chinese foreign ministry spokespersons threatened to take this issue to the UN Security Council resolution 1172 after the 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. The resolution passed at the heat of the moment and engineered by China and the US calling on the two countries to stop further nuclear tests, cap their nuclear weapon programmes, cease all fissile material production, and end development of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The resolution, however is non-binding. China’s threat falls through the floor.

Since then, India has come a long way on the nuclear issue. It issued a moratorium on nuclear testing, announced no first use of nuclear weapons policy and signed the India-US nuclear deal. India, however, will have to counter Chinese pressures in several such areas in the future.

The Chinese spokesperson also said that “China maintains that preserving the strategic balance and stability in South Asia is conducive to peace and prosperity of regional countries ‘and beyond’. Basically, the statement implied that India may have disturbed the strategic balance in South Asia and beyond, without counting its own intercontinental nuclear capable ballistic missiles and other weapons. As China its military development is defensive and not aimed at any country, so is the official India position.

But things between India and China may get worse if the CPEC and OBOR falter seriously. This is closely linked to Xi Jinping’s politics and stature of “core” leader of the Chinese Communist Party. The 19th Congress to the party will be held in autumn this year and major leadership changes will take place. Xi cannot have any chinks in his armour.

When OBOR starts faltering and it will, then Xi's enemies in China will bring the knives out. To divert this, he will need an external enemy. Lack of a string navy was and will remain China's Achilles heel.

Open source information indicates China has a definite edge or parity over even the USA in drone sw/hw and has been investing in improving its capabilities in this sector.

Given that most commercial drones are manufactured in China they definitely have a leg up in deploying such gadgets for military superiority. It's shocking difficult to take down a drone with conventional weapons like machine guns especially when a swarm can be deployed to saturate defences. China has already developed and and PLA can deploy some real innovative kamikaze drones with explosives at very short notice. I wonder if Indian armed forces have such assassin mace concepts in their war games

SOrry, the drone os is open source, all they do is make plastic parts for 30 minute flight drones and sell them cheaply. Getting military grade software and hardware is totally different. With 3D printing coming along a big way, even the printing of plastic parts will come to an end.

The Middle Kingdom led by its pompous XI-Gins,sabre-rattling again,this time using a boxing metaphor! Should the "gloves " indeed "come off".,there would be nothing for the US to launch strikes against the illegal mil bases that the PRC has set up on the remote atolls that are in dispute with other nations of the ICS and Asia-Pacific. Some kind of mil confrontation with China cannot be ruled out during the first years of a Trump presidency.These atolls,in the middie of the sea in a veritable "no man's land",re extremely vulnerable to attack/assault from any direction.So is all Chinese shipping transiting the IOR and ICS.

Beijing will 'take off the gloves' if Donald Trump continues on Taiwan

Donald Trump broke protocol when he took a congratulatory telephone call from Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen16 January 2017 • 2:22am

China has shown restraint in the face of provocations by US president-elect Donald Trump over Taiwan, but if he continues after assuming office Beijing will "take off the gloves", an official Chinese state-run newspaper said on Monday.

Mr Trump broke with decades of precedent last month by taking a congratulatory telephone call from Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen and has since cast doubt on America's commitment to a "One China" policy that recognises the island as a part of China.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published late on Friday, Mr Trump said the "One China" policy was up for negotiation. China's foreign ministry said "One China" was the foundation of China-US ties and was non-negotiable.

"If Trump is determined to use this gambit in taking office, a period of fierce, damaging interactions will be unavoidable, as Beijing will have no choice but to take off the gloves," the English-language China Daily said.Watch | China dismisses Donald Trump's call with Taiwan president as 'small trick' by Taipei01:29

The United States, which switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, has acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only "one China" and that Taiwan is part of it.

The China Daily said Beijing's relatively measured response to Mr Trump's comments in the Wall Street Journal "can only come from a genuine, sincere wish that the less-than-desirable, yet by-and-large manageable, big picture of China-U.S. relations will not be derailed before Trump even enters office".

But China should not count on the assumption that Mr Trump's Taiwan moves are "a pre-inauguration bluff, and instead be prepared for him to continue backing his bet".

"It may be costly. But it will prove a worthy price to pay to make the next U.S. president aware of the special sensitivity, and serious consequences of his Taiwan game," said the national daily.

'We will strongly support Vietnam's enhancing its maritime law enforcement capability.'Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Monday promised Vietnam six new patrol boats during a visit to the Southeast Asian country locked in a dispute with China over the busy South China Sea waterway.Abe's stop in Vietnam completes a tour through an arc of a region where Japan stakes a leadership claim in the face of China's growing dominance and uncertainty over what policy change Donald Trump will bring as U.S. president.In September, Japan had said it was ready to provide new patrol boats to Vietnam after earlier supplying six old vessels.Maritime security and trade have been key themes during Abe's other stops - in Indonesia, the Philippines and Australia.Given the readiness of the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte to move closer to the Chinese and further from its traditional U.S. ally, Vietnam is one of fewer regional states showing potential readiness to confront China.Uncertainty over U.S. policy in Asia was amplified last week by comments from Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson that China must stop building islands in the South China Sea and that its access to those islands must not be allowed.Despite their differences, Vietnam also maintains a strong diplomatic track with China. China andVietnam said at the weekend they had agreed to manage their maritime differences and preserve peace and stability.Both Japan and Vietnam have also been strong supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free-trade pact which looks to have stalled in the face of Trump's pledge to withdraw the United States.The delegation signed a number of business agreements, including energy and textile projects and a project to help with the impact of climate change. Japan is Vietnam's biggest foreign investor after South Korea.

China and the US will soon have a head-on confrontation and Beijing winning this duel will lead to "normal exchanges" between the two in the future, said influential state-run Chinese media today.

Beijing - through its media - has gone from dismissing US President-elect Donald Trump as a "risible rookie" to referring to him as someone who may indeed back his words with deeds, governed as he is by his 'America first' doctrine.

After Trump on Sunday called NATO "obsolete", Beijing is shaken - to its core. Today's editorial in Global Times says as much. It talks of how Trump's focus on the UK and on Russia, and his dismissal of Europe, will see the world order "shaken", which means China "will suffer", the editorial warns.

"It is quite likely that China and the US will face a head-on confrontation. China must be quick in preparing for sharp provocations from the Trump administration. China's win over this confrontation will serve as the basis for normal exchanges between the two in the future," says the state-run news outlet's editorial.

Trump has even said that the 'One China' policy, the bedrock of Sino-US relations for the last 40 years, is up for review. (China considers Taiwan part of the mainland and will not brook anyone thinking or saying differently.)

"The one-China policy is one part of the existing world order. Trump not only wants to scrap the one-China policy, but also aims at an overall change. In a changing landscape, enhancing one's own strength is most important. Trump has shown strategic arrogance that is beyond America's strength and he seems to be confident that anyone he asks will yield to him," writes Global Times.

What this means for other countries, the editorial signals, is better relations with a China that's on the back foot. Call it the 'the law of unintended consequences.'

"China also needs to review its ties with other countries. It may have to improve relations with some countries so as to have more leverage in its game with the US," the editorial says.

Does this mean less strong-arming by China vis-a-vis countries that are not the US? It appears so.

"All in all, if Trump stirs up strategic challenges, China needs to change its way of thinking strategically. Preparing for the worst-case scenario will give China more initiative. In this era of change, China will offer its resolution in reshaping the global code of conduct," says Global Times.

Nepal’s military ties with China should not worry India, visiting Foreign Minister Prakash Sharan Mahat said here on Tuesday.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Raisina Dialogue 2017, the Foreign Minister assured that the upcoming military exercise between Nepal and China would not be at the cost of Nepal’s relations with India.

“The military exercise will be of a very small scale. There is no need for concern. Our ties with India and China cannot be compared with each other as the issues on both sides are different,” Mr. Mahat said, explaining that Nepal would continue to pursue better relationship with both Beijing and New Delhi.

Nepal will hold the first ever military exercise with China in February, which will take place months after the Nepal Army Chief paid a visit to Beijing.

In the backdrop of growing unease in Sino-India ties, India today said it has been trying to convince the Chinese government that its ascent is not harmful to the rise of China and that both countries should be sensitive on matters relating to sovereignty.

In an address at the Raisina Dialogue, Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar took strong objection to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which passes through Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir, saying there should have been some reflection on India's unhappiness over it.

"What we are trying to do is to convince China that our rise is not harmful to China's rise just as China's rise need not be to India's rise," he said at the gathering attended by representatives from across the world.

Chill has set in Sino-India ties following China's opposition to India's membership at the Nuclear Suppliers Group as well as Beijing blocking India's move at the UN to designate Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.

During the interactive session, during which he touched upon a vast array of subjects concerning international relations, Jaishankar said the SAARC has been made "ineffective due to the insecurity of one member".

Identifying terrorism as the most "pervasive and serious challenge" to international security, the Foreign Secretary said developing a serious global response to it is of the highest priority but rued that it is hard to do.

On ties with China, Jaishankar said there has been overall broadening of ties, especially in areas of business and people-to-people contact, but they have been overshadowed by differences on certain political issues.

"But it is important for the two countries not to lose sight of the strategic nature of their engagement, or falter in their conviction that their rise can be mutually supportive," he said.

Replying to a question on CPEC, he said both countries should show sensitivity to each other's sovereignty.

"China is a country which is very sensitive on matters concerning its sovereignty. So we would expect that they would have some understanding of other people's sensitivity on their sovereignty," he said.

Jaishankar said the CPEC passes through a "piece of land that we call Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir which is territory belongs to India and which is illegally occupied by Pakistan".

He said the project has been undertaken without consultation with India and that its sensitivity and concerns towards it are natural.

On India's overall ties with China, he said both the countries have opened up significantly since 1945.

"In a sense, both of us, if you step back and look at it, are opening up a very close international order. When people talk about change since 1945, I think two big changes are really India and China.

"I would say if China had not opened up the international order the way it did, I think it would be much harder today for India also to exploit those phases. There is a high degree of shared interests," he said.

China today said differences over India's NSG membership bid and designating of JeM chief Masood Azhar as a terrorist by the UN should not be "stumbling blocks" in developing ties and asserted that both sides must respect each other's core interests and major concerns.

Appreciating Prime Minister Narendra Modi's remarks that the rise of India and China offered an "unprecedented opportunity" for both countries, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a media briefing here that it is very important for both countries to have sound and stable cooperation.

"As for Prime Minister Modi's positive remarks, we appreciate that. The two leaderships are in frequent touch with each other and had extensive exchanges," she said.

"The consensus is that the common interests far outweigh our differences," she said in reply to questions on Prime Minister Modi's speech at the "Raisina Dialogue-II" yesterday in which he outlined his approach for an integrated neighbourhood.

Asked about India's concerns over China blocking India's NSG membership bid and efforts to get Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Azhar banned by the UN, Hua said the two are multilateral issues and both sides should understand each other's positions instead of pointing fingers. {That's it, very simple answer !!}

"I think we need to try to understand from the other party's position. Respecting each other's core interests is our basic position. We have common interests and we also have differences," she said.

"The key is to resolve these differences through friendly consultation, instead of pointing fingers at each other and accusing the other of neglecting core interests. For the two issues, they are specific issues, and they are not bilateral ones," Hua said.

On the NSG issue, Hua said, "India's application to the NSG bears on the authority of the NPT (nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty) and China has been very responsible in approaching the issue."

She said China wants a non-discriminatory agreement that is applicable to all the parties after which "we can discuss specific cases of application. The purpose is to uphold the sanctity of the regime."

About the China blocking India's efforts to get Azhar banned by the UN for his alleged involvement in the Pathankot terror attack, she said, "the technical hold is to uphold the effectiveness of the committee and show some respect to the rules of procedure of the committee."

"We have been following these rules in maintaining contact with other countries. And this issue will be resolved when all parties reach consensus. We need more time for more thorough deliberations so that consensus is reached," she said.

"This (Azhar) issue will be resolved when all parties involved reach consensus. We need more time for more thorough deliberations to reach consensus. So these two issues shall not be stumbling blocks for China-India to develop their relationship. We need to look further and seek common ground to remain and maintain our mutually beneficial cooperation and together seek a solution to these issues," she said.

India's application to get Azhar banned had lapsed after two technical holds put up by China in the 1267 Committee. India is expected to file a fresh application this year.

"For the listing matter (in) 1267 committee our technical hold is to uphold the effectiveness of the committee. It shows our respect to the rules of procedure of the committee. We have been following these rules in maintaining contact with other countries," she said.

"China has been stressing that under the strong leadership of the two countries, China and India relationship is growing stably and we have been expanding our cooperation. It is very important to keep our cooperation to grow in a sound and stable way. It will benefit the region and whole world and serve the common interests of the two sides," Hua said.

On Prime Minister Modi's assertion that both sides should show sensitivity and respect for each other's core concerns and interests, Hua said, "China has been committed to respecting the core interests and major concerns of each other and to enhance mutual trust and cooperation."

"For the differences and all the problems we made it clear that we will remain in touch with India and properly manage differences and resolve them through friendly consultations," she said.

She also defended the USD 46 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) while reacting to Modi's remarks that only by respecting sovereignty of countries involved can regional connectivity corridors fulfil their promise and avoid differences and discord.

"In his remarks PM Modi did not directly mention the CPEC. On respecting the sovereignty of other countries, China always develops friendly and cooperative relations with other countries on the basis of five principles of peaceful coexistence, (of which) one of the principles is of respecting the sovereignty of other countries," Hua said.

"We also follow these principles in promoting cooperation in all round way including regional connectivity," she said.

"Regarding CPEC, this is a project that is devised for long term development and cooperation in various fields . It is of great significance in regional connectivity and trade cooperation. It targets no third country and it will not affect China's position on (the) Kashmir issue," {I keep saying that China gives foolish answers and ties itself up in knots and completely vulnerable to easy riposte, retort and counters. It thinks it is smart and doesn't understand that it is actually a laughing stock}

Supratik wrote:I will add one more factor to the difference between 2012 and 2016. India has overtaken China in growth rate. This year may be the second in a row despite demo. Projections for the next two years are the same. First boy is no longer first and may not be in the near future as Chinese growth slows towards a lower trajectory (economic growth from developing to developed is a bell-shaped curve). It means competition may be catching up. The missile is the same unless they tested MIRVs.

My comment is China is wrapped up in its own pretzel logic. It claims to uphold the NPT and it has done the maximum damage to NPT by transferring nuke weapons to Pakistan and via Pakistan to North Korea and now preaches to India.

It could do all this via the US willful laxity in 1986 when the first bombs were transferred, in 1992 when the M9 and M11 were transferred , in 1996 when the Chinese transferred ring magnets to Pakistan to augment HEU in purloined centrifuges.

Secondly China claims to uphold UN 1267 committee while protecting a Pakistani terrorist who has committed repeated terrorist attacks on India. This shows how committed China is for peaceful co-existence which it claims.

One way out is not seek the NSG any more and send Hafiz Suar to jahannum a la Osama Bin Ladin under the Supreme Interest/national Security clause of self defence

Just as a matter of dhoti-shiver: a small non-war on some flimsy pretext, involving a few bombing raids/conventional missiles, would set back India's Glowth Late by a huge amount without doing a whole lot of damage to PRC's export economy. Gwadar may be laid waste, Myanmar-tip base may be kaput but that's neither here nor there. If Mumbai, Kolkatta ports and Gurgaon are smoking, the impact on India's economy would be huge. B4 jumping up and down about what v would do to Chinese cities, ask urself how many mijjiles are actually weaponized and ready today. Conventional onlee. No one is going new clear.

Of course this would end Chinese product acceptance in the Indian market. I don't know if that is very significant to China.

My point is that peace with China IS important - for the next few years as missile production and infrastructure ramp up.

Cautioning India on the “increasing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean”, a senior US Admiral on Wednesday said that India and the U.S. were exchanging information on the movement of Chinese submarines in the region.

To deepen this cooperation, Chief Admiral Harry Harris of the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) called for early conclusion of the other two foundational agreements, especially the one on communications interoperability.

“We work closely with India and improving India’s capabilities to do that kind of surveillance… Chinese submarines are clearly an issue. They are operating in the region … There is sharing of information regarding Chinese maritime movement in the Indian Ocean,” Admiral Harris said on the sidelines of the Raisina Dialogue.The Chinese Navy has been active in the region and a Chinese nuclear submarine had docked at Karachi harbour last year. “I think the relationship between China and Pakistan is a matter of concern and I will certainly be discussing it with my Indian counterparts as India is also concerned about that,” he said. He said a prosperous China was not a bad thing in itself, but when that strength “turns into aggression” then “it’s a problem.”

After protracted negotiations, India and US concluded the logistics agreement Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Understanding (LEMOA) in August last year, which gives the two militaries access to each other’s facilities for rest and refuelling.